How Should Behavior Analysis Interact Effectively with the Social Sciences?

Abstract

I would like to discuss some perspectives on scientific approaches traditionally viewed as mutually incompatible or antagonistic. This might be illustrated by e.g. natural scientists’ claim of unambiguous communication as a result of objective description of experience vs. social constructivists claiming that there can be no such objective description of reality, since reality is constructed in a context and may vary relative to an individual’s perception, cultural, ethnic and political belonging. This is not a discussion limited to behavioural analysis vs. humanistic approaches or empiricism vs. hermeneutics, but a seemingly antagonistic and sometimes hostile dispute going on for more than half a century within the European and American intellectual communities. I want to frame this discussion with reference to the classical scientific ambition of “Unity of Knowledge� as expressed by the physicist Niels Bohr. This ambition is further developed and refined by contemporary biologist Edward O. Wilson when he describes the unity of knowledge as “Consilience.� I want to argue for a unifying behavioural approach with high scientific ambitions, but with the humble recognition that we have not yet, and may never reach a point we can call “The End of Science.�